Mr. Affleck Goes to Hollywood: Argo

Having posted my feelings about Zero Dark Thirty, I will now discuss the, in my opinion, much superior and more filmic Argo.

I should probably admit that I'd heard the story before I went in, but forgotten how it ended. If you read the same cracked article as me, you may well know the outcome and this whole film will have a waft of the ol' Zero Dark Thirty about it. And if that's the case, I pity you.
This film is as tense as anything. There is a genuine sense of oncoming doom throughout; the trailer boldly states "If these people die, they die badly" and you believe it. The general throng of Iranians that we see throughout the film serve as the antagonists, and one could decry that as racist were it not for the fact that this film is based on a true story. And the actors playing the 'house guests' (i.e. the Americans in hiding) really do give you the impression of people scared out of their wits- they seem terrified for their lives, and so the audience feels it, too.
Ben Affleck, too, gives a fine performance as Tony Mendez; he's suitably reserved to be an FBI agent while still cluing the audience in to the gravity of the situations playing out on screen. He also displays some good comedic timing during the Hollywood sequences. 
Which brings me nicely to the other section of the film, which is not quite so tense but is laugh out loud funny. Mr. Affleck goes to Hollywood and sets up a fake production company with John Goodman and Alan Arkin. It is really, really good satire of an industry that (from WAY outside, at least) seems rife with contradictions and stupidity. Goodman is lovable and funny, which must have been a real stretch for him. And what I love about this portion of the film is that it proves that films about serious situations, real-life stories and touchy subjects can still have humor and a bit of levity. This film put time into its script and allowed itself some zingers, and that improves it no end.
But back to the military stuff; as I mentioned in my Zero Dark Thirty review, this film takes some very obvious liberties with its climax. Not wanting to give anything away, I'll just say it's blatant, but I didn't care, because it was thrilling.  The sense of impending tragedy, which has gestated throughout, suddenly blossoms into a deadly but beautiful man-eating plant in the end, which towers above the likes of other 'true-to-life' movies and challenges the next director to take on such a story to do so with half as much panache.
But, yet again, I can't just gush at this picture- it's not perfect. For one thing, they never discuss the morality of what the Americans are doing by protecting the Shah: it's just kind of waved away as the 'right thing to do' with nary a thought given to the people he oppressed and maybe giving them some form of justice. And, sadly, this film doesn't have much for the women to do (there are actually a number of named female characters, Ms. Bechdel, but none of them play particularly essential roles narrative-wise), so ZDT wins out in that respect. Naturally, both these flaws stem to a degree from the fact that this story is based on facts and the actions of real people and not fictional characters under the control of a writer, but since embellishments were already made, I have to call them out on it and say they could've taken some license with events. Still, these are flaws in the film's ethics, and are, obviously, up to debate with the audience's own personal views on morality. 
It really is worth watching, if only as a political/espionage thriller with some awesome performances and a few jabs at old Hollywood thrown in for good measure.

P.S. My other nomination for Best Actress in an Utterly Minor Role goes to Sheila Vand, who plays the housekeeper Sahar; she has, at my count, five lines, and delivers each one with a real dramatic intensity that amps up the tension of any scene she's in.
P.P.S. I swear the opening narration is done by Marjane Satrapi, who wrote Persepolis. No narrator is credited on IMDB, but that's a pretty cool cameo to have, in my opinion.

La Vida Loca: Silver Linings Playbook

As anyone who saw me the night after I saw Silver Linings Playbook will attest, I absolutely loved this film.

Jennifer Lawrence, whom I first noted as the most enjoyable aspect about X-men First Class, is just brimming with charisma. Tiffany, her character, is one of my favourite female leads that I have seen for ages: she is the modern Annie Hall, whilst being almost entirely the opposite of that eponymous flighty dame.
Let me explain: Annie is possibly the best example of a manic pixie dream girl ever seen in a mainstream romantic comedy- she's cute, she's eccentric (but believably so), and, perhaps most tellingly, she's unhappy in her life but hides it behind a winning smile and a well-practiced sense of whimsy. Tiffany is cute...and the similarities end there. Tiffany isn't eccentric- she's mentally unbalanced (arguably) but all her actions have a logic that is perfectly evident- what's more, she calls out Pat, her male counterpart, on his very eccentric actions of ordering raisin bran for dinner and freaking out when he hears a certain song. And Tiffany does not hide her damage the way Annie does- but she is definitely content to be the way she is.
And that's why I love this film: it's about the search for happiness. And not in an American constitution way, but in a relatable, universal kind of way. Pat and Tiffany don't care about getting 'better', as long as they're happy. And that's beautiful. The scene where Tiffany declares herself a slob and a slut and then goes on to state how she likes that part of herself is absolutely joyful to watch, because it's not forced. It's completely believable and it's a lovely sentiment to see put out in a world which can sometimes seem so much about putting people down. Also, since I made a point of this with Zero Dark Thirty, I should say that I very much admire the gender politics of that declaration.
And, I should say, this film is funny; Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs funny. There are a lot of good lines in the trailer, and this tone is extended to the entire film. As previously hinted, the film it reminds me of most is Annie Hall: it's just a really well-made romantic comedy, and, like Annie Hall or When Harry Met Sally, it reminds us that no genre is beyond redemption and that execution is everything. The addition of a thesis about mental illness and the power of positive thinking does the story no harm at all and artfully elevates it to be a cut-above its all-too-often cookie-cutter peers.
I've gushed about Lawrence, but I should also mention Bradley Cooper: he does an extraordinary job with a very difficult role. His is the part that would, in other comedies, be relegated to that of the 'quirky' (read: socially damaged) best friend whom the audience is almost entirely convinced has a mental illness that the characters in the film are rather cruelly ignoring. (The fact that Pat, Cooper's character, has such a best friend who is actually properly diagnosed is also a welcome change.) Cooper transitions him to leading man with aplomb, like Lawrence, mixing earnestness, believability and just sheer brilliant comedic timing into a wonderful performance. Robert De Niro also delivers an engaging turn as Pat's father- on the surface, he seems like a typical movie father- distanced, a tad severe but ultimately good-hearted. As the film goes on we see another part to him, and I really admire the revelations the film adds to what could have been a stereotypical character.
And I think that's what I like about this film so much- it takes a story that is very firmly in a genre (romantic comedy) that is for the most part entirely played out, and twists it to breathe in new life (much like Annie Hall, fancy that). It puts in some serious examination to character archetypes that we're all familiar with (the damaged hero, his manic pixie dream girl, the stoic father, the wacky best friend) and then tells us what could really be behind these character traits in real life but loses none of the humor that makes these films so watchable to begin with.
I should say that it's not absolutely perfect: there is a scene, which establishes the stakes for the denouement, which  does drag on a bit and, to be honest, maybe takes the realism of the dialogue a little bit too far (but in no way to the same degree as Zero Dark Thirty), but that's the only part of the film that made me wish it would speed up.
I thoroughly recommend it for everyone: it'll warm your hearts, exercise your brain and make you chuckle. Who could ask for more?

Give it to me straight: Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty. Hmmm... I really don't think I can explain my reaction to this film without referencing a couple of others, and giving away plot details as I do it. Sorry.

Get it? She's casting a shadow over America with her determination. Subtle. 

THIS POST WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR ZERO DARK THIRTY, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE AND ARGO

One of the most disturbing experiences I ever had in a cinema was when I went to see Slumdog Millionaire with my mother. During the scene where SPOILERS the children are about to be blinded  by Maman, a gangster, and then Salim puts a gun to Maman's head. My mother, life long liberal, staunch believer in the sanctity of life and enemy of violence, said, out loud, 'kill him'.
I mention this because Slumdog Millionaire also contained graphic violence and morally dubious acts. But there was a difference between Slumdog and Zero Dark Thirty; Slumdog was inherently cinematic.
SPOILERS Salim does pull the trigger on Maman, and even my mother felt the rush of victory in that moment. Because Slumdog wasn't just presenting facts, it was telling a story- it had villains, and arcs and a resolution. Zero Dark Thirty is more like watching a game of battleships, with the characters striking at random places until they happen to land a hit. There is no 'kill him' moment- we don't ever feel the goosepimples that come with a villain slain. The characters are not the point of Zero Dark Thirty: we learn very little of Maya, and so we should. It's made evident her colleagues of eight years don't even know her- what hope do we have with only 150 minutes? And so, what we're left with to compel us is the narrative, which is compelling...to a point.

I understand the angle that was taken with this film: they were giving us as close to a real story as they could manage (and, by God, this is a better approach than 'The Impossible'). But let's compare this film with Argo, another awards-courting movie about a special military operation, lead by a mistrusted military outcast- Argo took liberties with the source material: SPOILERS it added in a chase sequence at the end which was kinda nuts but oh so thrilling. Of course it wasn't real, I knew it wasn't real, but it was so thrilling. I cared what happened to the characters. I wanted them to be OK, and now there was a high-speed pursuit down a runway that was threatening their future well-being.
Awesome.
In Argo, we also get to learn a little about the home-life of our main character- he's not just a soldier, he's a person. We don't want him to die in the film's denouement. In Zero Dark Thirty, SPOILERS Maya, the character we've followed most throughout the film, and thus should care about most, is not even involved in the film's ostensible climax. She can't be. She's a high-ranking intelligence officer and it's a military operation- why on earth would she be invited along? Naturally, she wouldn't, wasn't and isn't. There's a few cuts to her looking apprehensive, but that's it. She is in not within harm's reach.
(And, let's discuss the climax itself; about ten dudes, heavily armed and with military training, against a house full of women, children and three men who may or may not have army training. Not all that thrilling, I'll be honest.)
See, this is where Zero Dark Thirty falls apart: its selling point- that dusty, crackly realism all the ads were selling us- is also its major flaw. The story of finding Osama Bin Laden was a lot of people talking in rooms, typing on computers, with the occasional explosion thrown in. Explosions are cinematic- none of that other stuff is. And having an anti-climax where your main character isn't even in danger of chipping a nail is just the tasteless cherry on a bland cake.
The mystery itself could be engaging if a) we didn't already know the outcome and b) it was presented as a mystery, with all the possible options laid out and various clues and red herrings fed to us. But that's not how it works- it's an actual police investigation, where one interview leads to another, and another and another, and another (type on computer, explosion) and another and then, voila, we have the answer.

It's not a terrible film- Jessica Chastain, though still tainted in my eyes from being associated with The Tree of Life, does an adequate job as the lead character; though I'm still not sure there was much of a job to do- I mean, she was rather deadpan. I guess she was meant to be.
The supporting cast are all competent as well-  sadly, they don't really have anyone play Bin Laden, which is a shame, because it would have been interesting to see someone portray him, just like that scene with Hitler that everyone keeps fiddling with on the internet.
I should praise the film for its gender politics- very few references are made to Maya's gender. She's a character, not a woman.
The script was no great shakes, but yet again, I don't think it was meant to be; this is not The Avengers. It's not meant to be fun.

And, I think that right there is the problem; Argo and Slumdog were aiming for darkness, yes, but also entertainment- they aimed to satisfy your basic cinematic needs for suspense, payoff and a wee bit o' humor. Zero Dark Thirty presents the plain, hard facts and does so in the plain, hardest way possible. Admirable, perhaps, but not particularly appealing.